Evolution of cranial capacity revisited: A view from the late Middle Pleistocene cranium from Xujiayao, China

Morphological and morphometric analyses of a late Middle Pleistocene hominin mandible from Hualongdong, China

Excavations in Hualongdong (HLD), East China, have yielded abundant hominin fossils dated to 300 ka. There is a nearly complete mandible that fits well with a partial cranium, and together they compose the skull labeled as HLD 6. Thus far, detailed morphological description and comparisons of the mandible have not been conducted. Here we present a comprehensive morphological, metric, and geometric morphometric assessment of this mandible and compare it with both adult and immature specimens of Pleistocene hominins and recent modern humans. Results indicate that the HLD 6 mandible exhibits a mosaic morphological pattern characterized by a robust corpus and relatively gracile symphysis and ramus. The moderately developed mental trigone and a clear anterior mandibular incurvation of the HLD 6 mandible are reminiscent of Late Pleistocene hominin and recent modern human morphology. However, the weak expression of all these features indicates that this mandible does not possess a true chin. Moreover, a suite of archaic features that resemble those of Middle Pleistocene hominins includes pronounced alveolar planum, superior transverse torus, thick corpus, a pronounced endocondyloid crest, and a well-developed medial pterygoid tubercle. The geometric morphometric analysis further confirms the mosaic pattern of the HLD 6 mandible. The combination of both archaic and modern human features identified in the HLD 6 mandible is unexpected, given its late Middle Pleistocene age and differs from approximately contemporaneous Homo members such as Xujiayao, Penghu, and Xiahe. This mosaic pattern has never been recorded in late Middle Pleistocene hominin fossil assemblages in East Asia. The HLD 6 mandible provides further support for the high morphological diversity during late Middle Pleistocene hominin evolution. With these findings, it is possible that modern human morphologies are present as early as 300 ka and earlier than the emergence of modern humans in East Asia.

Making meaning from fragmentary fossils: Early Homo in the Early to early Middle Pleistocene

In celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Journal of Human Evolution, we re-evaluate the fossil record for early Homo (principally Homo erectus, Homo habilis, and Homo rudolfensis) from early diversification and dispersal in the Early Pleistocene to the ultimate demise of H. erectus in the early Middle Pleistocene. The mid-1990s marked an important historical turning point in our understanding of early Homo with the redating of key H. erectus localities, the discovery of small H. erectus in Asia, and the recovery of an even earlier presence of early Homo in Africa. As such, we compare our understanding of early Homo before and after this time and discuss how the order of fossil discovery and a focus on anchor specimens has shaped, and in many ways biased, our interpretations of early Homo species and the fossils allocated to them. Fragmentary specimens may counter conventional wisdom but are often overlooked in broad narratives. We recognize at least three different cranial and two or three pelvic morphotypes of early Homo. Just one postcranial morph aligns with any certainty to a cranial species, highlighting the importance of explicitly identifying how we link specimens together and to species; we offer two ways of visualizing these connections. Chronologically and morphologically H. erectus is a member of early Homo, not a temporally more recent species necessarily evolved from either H. habilis or H. rudolfensis. Nonetheless, an ancestral-descendant notion of their evolution influences expectations around the anatomy of missing elements, especially the foot. Weak support for long-held notions of postcranial modernity in H. erectus raises the possibility of alternative drivers of dispersal. New observations suggest that the dearth of faces in later H. erectus may mask taxonomic diversity in Asia and suggest various later mid-Pleistocene populations could derive from either Asia or Africa. Future advances will rest on the development of nuanced ways to affiliate fossils, greater transparency of implicit assumptions, and attention to detailed life history information for comparative collections; all critical pursuits for future research given the great potential they have to enrich our evolutionary reconstructions for the next fifty years and beyond.

Evolutionary history of hominin brain size and phylogenetic comparative methods

An absolutely and relatively large brain has traditionally been viewed as a distinctive characteristic of the Homo genus, with anatomically modern humans presented at the apex of a long line of progressive increases in encephalization. Many studies continue to focus attention on increasing brain size in the Homo genus, while excluding measures of absolute and relative brain size of more geologically recent, smaller brained, hominins such as Homo floresiensis, and Homo naledi and smaller brained Homo erectus specimens. This review discusses the benefits of using phylogenetic comparative methods to trace the diverse changes in hominin brain evolution and the drawbacks of not doing so.

Evolution of Homo in the Middle and Late Pleistocene

The Middle and Late Pleistocene is arguably the most interesting period in human evolution. This broad period witnessed the evolution of our own lineage, as well as that of our sister taxon, the Neanderthals, and related Denisovans. It is exceptionally rich in both fossil and archaeological remains, and uniquely benefits from insights gained through molecular approaches, such as paleogenetics and paleoproteomics, that are currently not widely applicable in earlier contexts. This wealth of information paints a highly complex picture, often described as 'the Muddle in the Middle,' defying the common adage that 'more evidence is needed' to resolve it. Here we review competing phylogenetic scenarios and the historical and theoretical developments that shaped our approaches to the fossil record, as well as some of the many remaining open questions associated with this period. We propose that advancing our understanding of this critical time requires more than the addition of data and will necessitate a major shift in our conceptual and theoretical framework.

Homo bodoensis and why it matters

In our original paper, we proposed a new species, Homo bodoensis, to replace the problematical taxa Homo heidelbergensis and Homo rhodesiensis, with the goal of streamlining communication about human evolution in the Chibanian. We received two independent responses. Given their substantial overlap, we provide one combined reply. In this response: (1) we are encouraged that the primary proposal in our paper, to discontinue the use of H. heidelbergensis (as a junior synonym to Homo neanderthalensis) due to its' nomenclatural problems, is acknowledged. (2) we provide additional clarification about the rules governing taxonomic nomenclature as outlined by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and join the growing calls for a revision to these rules. (3) we discuss further why H. rhodesiensis should be abandoned, particularly in light of the current sensitivity to using culturally inappropriate names. We conclude that H. bodoensis is a better solution than the proposed alternatives.